I don't see what the US has to lose from pulling out of the treaty. They get flexibility. China will complain and take it as a signal that the US doesn't believe in non-proliferation, which is BS as we all know but China wants to build more nukes anyway and this just gives them one more reason. China's 20-25 ICBMs aren't too scary anyway, and with an ABM system, it'll be a LONG time before China has the capability to do crippling damage to the US. Russia isn't taking it too hard; they said it was a mistake but didn't have serious consequences for their national security. They've had a formidable ABM network since the 70s. First with SA-5 GAMMONs, then SA-10 GRUMBLEs/ SA-20 GARGOYLEs (S-300P/PM/PMU1/2/3), the even more capable SA-12 GIANT (S-300V), the modernized S-300VM, and by next year if funding allows, the S-400. Not to mention lots of radars. Comments that the Russians are upset because they 'can't afford to build their own' is only partly true. Space-based forget about it, but land-based yeah. The most capable ABM systems they have are the S-300V/VM and the S-400.

Both sides have been violating the treaty for a long time, so I think it is good that we have finally came forward and said the treaty is now worthless. For all who obeyed the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, they soon found themselves with worthless navies not able to do battle with the large Japanese and German ships. I don't think I want to be caught with my pants down in developing a system to protect us from nuclear attack. In January I will be in Moscow and I will be safer than all of you from a missile attack. The missiles may come from the US or some other nation, but I will have an Anti-Ballistic Missile defense shield to protect me. What? You do not know about Moscow's ABM shield? The Soviets built a rudimentary missile-defense system around Moscow before the 1972 treaty and replaced it with a far more advanced system in 1987 that was copied from the U.S. Nike-X. But doesn't this violate the ABM treaty? No. "In the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas, so restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one. The Treaty permits each side to have one limited ABM system to protect its capital and another to protect an ICBM launch area. The two sites defended must be at least 1,300 kilometers apart, to prevent the creation of any effective regional defense zone or the beginnings of a nationwide system. At each site there may be no more than 100 interceptor missiles and 100 launchers." These sentences came directly out of the May 26, 1972 ABM Treaty. In 1981, the Soviets had deployed thousands of SA-5 interceptors across Soviet territory, along with a network of large Hen House radars, and had begun to upgrade both with more-capable systems. What the United States didn't know was that all were connected into a coherent, nationwide missile-defense network. Since then, their ABM defense system has been upgraded at least 8,000 modern interceptors and 12 long-range radars. The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems So who disagrees with me? For a couple of weeks I will be safer over there than here. Have the Soviets then the Russians been violating the treaty? Yes, of course they have. Have we? Yes. Clinton did not even take part in the mandatory five-year review of the treaty called for under article XIV, part 2 in 1998. Should we play on an equal field with the Russians? Should we build our own ABM shield that is permitted? What city should we defend beside D.C.? New York is closer then 1,300 km and would violate the treaty. How much is a city like Seattle or Portland worth to you? Chernobyl will not be occupied for a long time and very few lives were lost, considering. Is the cost of the insurance policy for these cities more or less then the cost of an ABM system? Thanks to Green Nazi's like Ralph Nader we can't deploy the same kind of system as the Russians. You would think that launching small tactical nukes against incoming missiles would make far more sense that trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. But the nuclear fallout from such a defense system would pollute the environment. So we must spend 10's of billions to save the mouse and the eagles from a Chernobyl like contamination. So if we don't survive from our evil military industrial complex, the earth will live on. Boy, I feel better now. Does anybody know where Narrow Cap is in Alaska's Aleutian Islands? That is where Bill Clinton started to build our ABM system that we be operational in a few years. You learn something everyday, huh?

What I have learned is what the unnatural result is when two people violate both the civil and natural law, as well as the generally accepted understanding that you do not breed with your sibling, courtesy of your parents. So Malrait Denny’s is letting you off to travel to Moscow supposedly, is this like you mysterious trips to Korea earlier this year, I can’t imagine that they would need someone to travel so far to clean their grease traps, but then it is Russia. You are such a smart guy who has researched so much, that you managed to miss, PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974. Which changed the terms of the treaty, limiting each side to only one site, The Soviets chose their Moscow defense site, and the US chose the site we were building in Grand Forks North Dakota, to defend our Missiles Silos. Oh I guess you also would have learned that we had it operational in 1976, but within days the Congress cut all funding to it, decided that killing the patient to cure the disease by air busting nuclear weapons over our own territory, was what we big people call a bad idea. Then again, judging from your total lack of understanding I guess you think the idea of air busting nukes over population centers is a good thing. (Remember the Soviets were the same people who considered rigging most of the buildings in Moscow to drop on the advancing Nazis to be a good idea.) I guess if your idea of being safe is having the potential of one hundred Tactical nukes going off above your head, with their thermal and pressure waves and not to mention the radiation to be a safe thing then enjoy, oh make sure to ask for some Chernobyl Chicken they have the special three and four drumstick varieties. I must admit though my personal favorite part of your post was this statement of yours: “Yes. Clinton did not even take part in the mandatory five-year review of the treaty called for under article XIV, part 2 in 1998.” This was of chores your argument and evidence for claiming that the US violated the ABM treaty. Well the treaty was signed in 1972 plus five years equals 1977 plus five years equals 1982, plus five years equals 1987, plus five years equals 1992, plus five years equals 1997, not 1998. (Can’t you even add simple numbers? I guess they don’t let you use the register at work ah.) Oh and there was a meeting in 1997 which was when the Clinton Administration signed what is known as the Memorandum of Understanding – (September 26, 1997) extending the ABM treaty to all nations of the former Soviet Union who had components of the Moscow system. So, any other ignorant anti-American rants that you care to throw out Troll.

Malrait give it up, anyone with half a brain will recognize your BS for what it is, oh and by the way I am not Jay, you couldn’t even get that right. Your Anti-Americanism was claiming the US violated the treaty when in fact they didn’t. Oh since you are obviously are having arguments with those voices in your schizophrenia mind, you might want to look back at A. the fact that I never said Russia, or the Soviet Union were not violating the treaty or for that matter every other treaty they have ever signed, B. you were the one claiming that we missed the treaty review, when in fact, the memorandum of understanding was part of that review and C. your idea of detonating nuclear bombs over our own cities shows how little you know about either nuclear weapons, or their effects. Oh, and by the way nice try to pretend that you intentionally screwed up, that your whole argument was based on attacking Russia, and that you had no Anti-America tendencies at all. You must be very desperate for attention, I actually feel very sorry for you maybe you can go to a community center and make some real friends. Oh and I am not going to waste my time I have already accomplished my purposes of showing your previous argument to be full of crap, and you to be a liar. So, go back to posting on various websites and calling radio talk shows so that in your mind at least you can continue the façade that you are some kind of a respected intellectual. For those of you who are interested in seeing more of this latest incarnation of Malrait go to the Kosovo War string.

Well, as Troll Watcher said I'm not him, and no I won't be posting anything to argue with you any more. I just feel sorry for you.

When you use an ABM tipped with a nuke warhead, how far up and how far down range will it be when it detonates. I don't think the answer is going to be all that reassuring.

Anywhere from 1 to 15 kilometers up, becuase you have to wait to ensure that the incoming warhead is actually targeted to hit the city. Anywhere within 30 kilometers is considered an air burst So you trade a crater and fallout for a magnified pressure wave and intesified shorter term radiation exposure.

Hi everybody! After reading the posts in this thread, I found some misunderstandings in some of the later ones: It is very important to consider the yields of the attacking and the defending weapons when talking about damage effects. A 10 Kt "Sprint" interceptor warhead exploding 30 km over your head will do you less damage than a megaton-class 1200 m airburst or even several ground bursts in the vicinity! And the bigger "Spartan" missiles intercept the incoming "threat cloud" of warheads, decoys and missile fragments outside the atmosphere, so "only" EMP effects will be the problem. Even when it is not destroyed, the enemy warhead will be, at least, disabled by neutron flux from the interceptor's blast. So you trade EMP effects and blasts tens to hundreds km's away for direct hit(s) and the complete destruction of the asset(s) you wanted to defend. So the rationale behind this could be: Even a small defence is better than no defence! I do not want to start a discussion about the usefulness of a limited ABM system, but I think the above points had to be made. Sources: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/complete.htm. For missile specs: search for Anti-Ballistic Missiles on: http://www.index.ne.jp/cgi-bin/search?cat=missile_e&plate=search.html&imgpath=/missile_e/gif/&dep_country= Hope this helps! Mike